DaVinci Code movie taking out the religious aspect
 

If you want to read this article: http://www.phenomenamagazine.com/0/e...22&obj_id=3741 before going further, this thread will make more sense.

The abbreviated version:

The film version of The Da Vinci Code is attempting to reduce the offence that the best-selling book caused to Roman Catholics.

So, if they take out religion, the Magdalene, the sacred feminine, Opus Dei, the sex ritual, the Priory of Sion... then, I guess they'll be left with a great car chase movie...

This makes me not want to see the movie anymore. Trying to take religion out of the movie and anything that may offend the Catholic church? I have a better idea: let's make another Jurassic Park movie and take out all the dinosaurs so we don't offend any archeologists. That movie would make about as much sense.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in quite some time.

Personally, I was never all that interested in seeing the book filmed in the first place.

Dan Brown's novels are in the same vein as those of Jack Whyte's Camulod Chronicles, Both authors use formulaic narratives and story structures to show what they really want to show, all of the nifty information they've dug up. The plots of these stories end up as they should: pointless, drab canvasses upon which each author can paint how brilliant they are and what their extensive research has produced.

Even if the religious leanings in The Da Vinci Code were left in the script, chances are, the movie would still come out as a middle-of-the-road, ho-hum thriller, that's not all that good to begin with.

I hear they will be remaking the Passion of the Christ and taking out the crucifixtion - because that offended some people...

what idiocy on the parts of the movie makers... some parts of it could be removed I suppose...but .. eh- -it just made the book more interesting...

The Da Vinci Code was one of the most ridiculous books I've read in a long time, in my opinion, anything they do to change the plot is going to be a bonus. In fact, adding dinosaurs wouldn't be a bad idea at all, it would certainly make it more entertaining and highbrow. Imagine the merchandising!

I think the fact that they want to change the MAIN CENTRAL THEME of the book is ridiculous, why even make it a movie to start with? That would be like remaking star wars without the dark side because it offended the jedi masters (if there were such a thing...dont ask...thats the only analogy that came into my head :lol: )

I doubt that the filmakers will actually purge the movie of any of the central religious themes. It's not suprising that representives of Opus Dei and the Catholic church have approached the producers with their concerns, and I imagine Sony simply hopes to create and exploit controversy for the sake of publicity. I think that this article is just the first example.

The book's hypothesis is bunk and the church can always dismiss it. If any change is made, it will be that a distinction between Opus Dei and the villans will be emphasized.

If the church and Opus Dei are as savvy as Sony, they'll use the controversy to espouse their views too. The dance begins...

Muahahahahahaha! That is so fucking hilarious.




And that is all that can be really said about that.

I hope they remake titanic without the boat sinking :lol:

oh goodness no, that was the only good part of that movie :)

I think all movies should be love stories in which nobody is insulted, injured, killed, or hurt in any way. That way, everyone is satisfied and nobody has to be offended. Except those offended by happiness.

/sarcasm

Anyways, this could and is mot likely is a marketing ploy to get people to discuss the film and thus advertise it. Taking out the religious aspects, as others have said, is the same as taking out the sinking of the Titanic, the crucifixion in Passion, the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.

I'm offended by happiness.

Is it just me or is the source of this information just a little spurious? Has this story been picked up by *anyone* else?

You beat me to it. This isn't exactly the Associated Press here....

Yep. I read Deception Point, which was pretty decent, though completely formulaic. There's a prologue, as there is in each of his books. The first sentence of the prologue introduces a character who appears to be happily going about his own business in the Arctic. In fact the first two words of the novel are his name. Two words into the book I knew that character would be dead before the end of the prologue. And he was.

In case you haven't read all of Dan Brown's books... If you've read one of them, you've read all of them. Angels and Demons is The Da Vinci Code with antimatter produced at CERN. Deception Point is The Da Vinci Code with a meteorite and NASA. Digital Fortress is Da Vinci Code with a supercomputer at the NSA (and as a technologist, this particular novel made me very embarassed for Mr. Brown).

They're not bad reads (well, excluding Digital Fortress) but mostly they're a playing ground for the interesting research Brown has done.

Incidentally, see <a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000844.html">this brilliant article</a> excoriating Brown for the stylistic naivete and awkwardness of his prose:

<blockquote>Brown's writing is not just bad; it is staggeringly, clumsily, thoughtlessly, almost ingeniously bad. In some passages scarcely a word or phrase seems to have been carefully selected or compared with alternatives. I slogged through 454 pages of this syntactic swill, and it never gets much better. Why did I keep reading? Because London Heathrow is a long way from San Francisco International, and airline magazines are thin, and two-month-old Hollywood drivel on a small screen hanging two seats in front of my row did not appeal, that's why. And why did I keep the book instead of dropping it into a Heathrow trash bin? Because it seemed to me to be such a fund of lessons in how not to write.</blockquote>

Wow I totally disagree with your opinion of the Whyte novels. I enjoyed the Camulod books and thought they added an interesting perspective to an old story. I've given them to several friends and they agreed.

I do however find your comments on Brown to be spot on. :thumbsup: I read a lot of technothrillers, alt history and whatever the hell one might call this genre of books. I read Da Vinci before it was a huge hit, thought it was okay and read the rest of his books. Deception Point was terrible. I'd rather read Clive Cussler's old Dirk Pitt. Digital Fortress was even worse...both suffered from drab, unoriginal plots and cardboard characters. Give me Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child's Special Agent Pendergrast anyday. :)

Well, to be fair, I wasn't accurate in comparing Whyte's novels to Brown's, I actually love Whyte's novels, and I think what he's come up with is fascinating, it's just that the plots in each of the novels are so similarly structured, that they just grate on me, slightly.

I love Dan Browns work :)

I enjoyed the books as well, but the stories are almost exactly the same in each one... so read them, just not all four in a month as i did.

It is true though. I've read Da Vinci, Angels & Demons, and Digital Fortress. They really are the same 3 stories, twisted around a little different plot line, but suprisingly the same chronology.

Someone dies, someone comes to research, finds huge conspiracy, almost gets killed by people keeping conspiricy a secret. World will end hero's don't solve big ridiculous riddle. Riddle solved, world back to normal. Although nothing in the world has actually changed, because everything is still a secret.

Dang, maybe I should have put that in spoiler tags.

Don't forget the betrayal and the hero getting shot.

If they *do* make a movie in which the religious aspect is removed....it would be the shortest movie in modern memory. Which might not be a bad thing.

I finished the Da Vinci Code last month, after eagerly buying it at the bookstore. I was very disappointed; there were a few intriguing parts but for the most part, it was repetitive and dull. Definitely wasn't worth the hardback price...more suited for the discount bin.

I thought this deserved reviving since the new trailer came out recently. Get it here

It looks to me that they've taken nothing from the book. The self inflicted beatings of Silas, the circlice, the Magdalene.... I even caught a glimpse of ol' naked Jacques sprawled out in the middle of The Louvre.

In fact, it looks like Ron Howard has stayed fairly true to the story, whether that pleases you or inflames your indignation is irrelevant. At least, it appears what you see is what you get, which is more than I can say for a lot of other movies out there.

Personally, I enjoyed the book. It wasn't exactly thought provoking material (there are a lot of books that cover the same information much, much better) nor was it a stylistic masterpiece; it was just enough of each to keep it entertaining, which is what I assume the movie is going to be.

I think it will make a better movei than it did a book - I quite liked the look of the trailer.

Not like it's the first time. Remember Clear and Present Danger? They used Clancy's character names, and the general locations, but EVERYTHING else was different.

LOL, this is why hollywood cannot make money, they just do not get it.

They should leave all the religious symbolism and everything in it of course, but that's in a perfect world. God forbid we offend someone, lest box office profits are affected somehow. Besides, if people would just remember that a large portion of this book was fiction, and that Dan Brown thus used "shady" sources and unproven theories and such to construct his novel, then maybe people wouldn't get so bent out of shape. Of course, this is Christianity we're talking about here... yay for fundamentalists.

Da Vinci Kong!

Thing is, you can kind of see their point. The film is full of shit, and people are going to believe it, because, you know, I'm sure there'll be some sort of text card at the start saying it's based on real research or something, just like there is in the novel. In some people's minds that's tantamount to saying 'this is all true'. I wonder if people are going to be as exposed to the alternate point of view? I somehow doubt it.

This is on my 'don't bother' list.

Edit: ratbastid: Excoriating! There's a word you don't see much. :thumbsup: